In July the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published its opinion on the French health agency ANSES’s evidenced-based position of December 2023, which criticised Annex I of the European Commission’s proposal on the deregulation of plants obtained from new GM techniques (new genomic techniques, NGTs). According to Annex I, “category 1” new GM plants (NGT1) can be treated as equivalent to conventionally bred plants – and not be subjected to the risk assessment, traceability or labelling requirements applied for the past decades to other GM plants – based on a few simplistic criteria, such as the number and size of the intended genetic modifications. In a move that came as no surprise, EFSA agreed with the Commission, concluding that new GMOs can be considered equivalent to conventional plants if they correspond to the Annex I criteria. However, this opinion disregards important scientific evidence and seems to be designed to deliver a politically and economically convenient result to suit the interests of the agricultural biotechnology lobby, rather than to protect public health and the environment, write Claire Robinson and Prof Michael Antoniou in a detailed analysis. GMWatch

 

 

Farmer union leaders from 18 states and activists advocating farmers’ rights have written a letter to Union Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Minister Bhupender Yadav, demanding a national policy on GM crops. On 22 August 2024, leaders and members of farmer unions held a one-day meeting in Chandigarh and passed a resolution against GM crops. “GM organisms (and their products) are unnecessary, unsafe, and unwanted in India’s food and agriculture systems. Farmers in India want sovereign, nature-conserving farming. Modern biotechnology is an expensive and unsafe means to take over and control our agricultural systems with false promises which we cannot and will not allow,” the farmer unions stated in their resolution. Organisations advocating farmer rights have been demanding comprehensive consultation as stakeholders in formulating a national policy for GM crops since the order given by the Supreme Court on July 23. The court had ordered the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to develop a national policy on GM crops within four months through public consultation involving all stakeholders and ‘representatives of farmers’. DownToEarth

 

 

At the Chandigarh meeting (see above), farmer leader Kapil Shah said, “See how the Bt cotton crop has failed. They said GM seeds would do away the need to use insecticides and the crops would not be susceptible to mealybug, whitefly and pink bollworm attacks. In reality, the use of insecticides has increased manifold as insect attacks are common, so much so that it has made cotton cultivation economically unviable.” Talking on the sidelines of the meeting, Shah said 91 per cent of the area under GM crops was in the USA, Brazil, Argentina, Canada and India. The other four countries use GM soybean, canola and maize. Farmer leader Rakesh Tikait also spoke about the failure of Bt cotton and how even domestic animals avoid going to Bt cotton fields, sensing high chemicals, besides its overall impact on the biological cycle. He advocated organic farming. Agriculture expert Devinder Sharma said farmer leaders from across the country were unanimous in their opinion that GM crops would not be allowed here and that unanimity among farmers was encouraging. “GM crops affect environment, livelihood of farmers and humans and animal health,” he said. The Tribune (India)

 

 

Foods that do not contain novel DNA will not be considered GM, even though they have been made using new GM techniques, according to new proposals from Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). The regulator has published a second call for public comments on the proposed changes. The deadline for submissions is 10 September. GMWatch comments that this approach, focusing only on the intended product, ignores potentially harmful unintended changes brought about by the genetic engineering processes used, as well as the unintended effects of the intended changes. The approach therefore poses serious risks to health and the environment. GMWatch comment on FSANZ proposal

 

 

The US's National Toxicology Program, or NTP, reported “clear evidence” that the farmer-used fumigant 1,3-D causes cancer in both rats and mice. The finding led the US Environmental Protection Agency to classify the chemical as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans” the same year, 1985. So it wasn’t a surprise, writes Liza Gross, when researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles reported in 2003 that Californians who’d lived at least two decades in areas with the highest applications of 1,3-D faced a heightened risk of dying from pancreatic cancer. Yet EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs’ Cancer Assessment Review Committee, or CARC, concluded in 2019 that 1,3-D isn’t likely to cause cancer after all. In doing so, EPA rejected the human evidence, calling the UCLA study “low quality”. It also dismissed the authoritative NTP study and studies in lab animals that documented 1,3-D’s ability to damage DNA, a quintessential hallmark of cancer. Instead, EPA’s CARC relied on studies provided by Dow AgroSciences (now Corteva), the primary manufacturer of 1,3-D, and proposed a review of evidence linking the fumigant to cancer by SciPinion, a consulting firm hired by Dow, as an external peer review of its work. The decision to entrust external review to a Dow contractor has drawn repeated criticism, including from the agency’s watchdog, the Office of Inspector General, or OIG. Inside Climate News

 

We hope you’ve found this newsletter interesting. Please support our work with a one-off or regular donation. Thank you!